Strategic Intuition - by Kunaal Arya

3 Lessons From Steve Jobs – The Inspiration Lives On

Kunaal Arya — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 06:42:14 +0000

Around 2002, when I came across the iPod, I got interested in business. I know AAPL was my first stock pick, and it was around the time I started getting interested. I was young, and was lucky to have mentors, and I read tons of books on business, after I realized it wasn’t cool to hate books. I started little businesses. I still remember Steve Jobs being my inspiration. I knew at 15-16, that I wanted to do great in the world. That I wanted to create, grow, execute, and run a great company. I started to learn more about Steve’s history as I went through University. I was amazed by his drive, and vision. I recognized the importance of design, and usability, through his products. I scoffed at pretty much all other companies, because they didn’t get it.

I’m saddened by Steve’s death. Although, I never met him, or have even been in the industry. He has had a profound impact on my life. I read the letters which industry leaders released and teared up. Steve has always been at the very core of my inspiration, drive, and motivation. As I read, watched and learned more about Steve over the years, I picked out the underlying factors which led to his success. Today, I remembered them again, and realized the impact it has had on my life. Although Steve is gone, there is no reason why we can’t continue to be inspired by what he has done, and use it as inspiration in our own lives, and in the work we do, to make our own dent in the universe.

3 Lessons From Steve Jobs

Steve Went Through Hell And Still Kicked Ass

Steve dropped out of college, started Apple, and lost it when he was kicked out of his own company. He didn’t sulk, and retire. He came back and he created two other companies, NeXT, and Pixar, then came back to Apple and turned a $5B company into $350B. Steve Jobs had cancer for a good part of this last decade, and still fought on, and still brought great products to market, all the while ensuring the right leadership was in place. This went into his personal life as well. Walt Mossberg posted a blog after Steve’s death and told a story about when he was ill, he asked Walt to go for a walk with him, and told him everyday he walks a little bit more, and that day he was going to walk over a mile to the neighbourhood park. Walt told him he wasn’t comfortable with it, but Steve said he had to. Steve Wozniak was quoted after Steve’s death saying: “People sometimes have goals in life. Steve Jobs exceeded every goal he ever set for himself.”

Lesson #1: Steve didn’t make excuses, and you shouldn’t either. Steve is an example of putting in your full effort into anything you do that you truly believe in. Find your passion, find THAT job, and kill it. If that fails, do whatever it takes to be in the next step, and hustle and kill it. Don’t make excuses, just like Steve never did. Exceed every goal you ever set for yourself.

Steve Jobs was born out of wedlock, put up for adoption at birth, dropped out of college, then changed the world. What’s your excuse? – @jwmoss

Steve Had The Vision For The Big Picture, While Paying Attention To The Details

Steve has been known to pay attention to the smallest details. According to Google’s Vic Gundotra, Steve left a message for him on a Sunday and asked to call him back at home:

“So Vic, we have an urgent issue, one that I need addressed right away. I’ve already assigned someone from my team to help you, and I hope you can fix this tomorrow” said Steve. “I’ve been looking at the Google logo on the iPhone and I’m not happy with the icon. The second O in Google doesn’t have the right yellow gradient. It’s just wrong and I’m going to have Greg fix it tomorrow. Is that okay with you?”

You can see the attention to detail in all of Apple’s products. Steve was involved with the product design of every product, and especially the flagship products to make them as perfect as possible. Steve wasn’t always like that, he learned it more and more, and especially at Pixar, and came back and led Apple with his attention to detail.

Lesson #2: Pay attention to the smallest of details, while building your vision of the future. With Steve it was in products. With you it may be in your work. It may be in your personal life. Know the big picture of where you will be in the future, and pay attention to the detail of the pieces to get there. Whether you’re building a spreadsheet, an advertising campaign, a memo, a company, an iPhone app. Do it to perfection. Improve on it. Everyone isn’t perfect. But strive to be. And improve along the way. Ask yourself when you’re done. Did I do this to perfection? No? Fix it! The little things count as much as the big things.

Steve Had Innovation At His Core

Steve has been a pioneer for innovation. There are very few innovators in the world today, and they even they admire Steve Jobs and were admired by him deeply. He brought to market the first personal computer. He made computers beautiful from the iBook to the iMac to the Macbook Air. He turned the music industry on their heads by bringing to market the iPod, and putting 1000s of songs into our pockets. He transformed the mobile phone industry with the iPhone, and turned RIM, Nokia, Sony Erricsson and many others on their heads. Through Siri, he brought the, although basic, artificial intelligence into the palm of your hand. He brought the first easy to use, and affordable tablet, and who knows what is left in the Apple pipeline. A famous quote from Steve: “There must be a better way.”

Lesson #3: Innovate in everything you do. Not everyone is going to be as innovative as Steve Jobs. Although, I think Elon Musk can come close. But have innovation as a goal in your life. In your job, find something innovative that can improve a process or a product or a service. Your company doesn’t like it? Go do it on your own! Innovate in your personal life. Be creative. (Nine Ways to Set Your Creativity on Fire) Find that spark. Find that passion, that leads to the spark. Build the knowledge that can create a spark. Read, learn, be inspired. Go to an art gallery, flip an industry upside down, write something, create something. Don’t have a talent? Go find one. Go make one. “There’s a phrase in Buddhism, ‘Beginner’s mind.’ It’s wonderful to have a beginner’s mind.” (Steve Jobs) Dream big. Like Steve said, “We’re here to put a dent in the universe. Otherwise why else even be here?” Find the better way.

Steve Jobs inspired, and was admired by all of us. Although he is now gone, his legacy lives on and it lives on strong. We can all look at Steve’s life and miss him, we all will. But know that he lives in each of us through the powerful message he left through the actions he took. Don’t look at the products he brought the world, or the industries he reshaped. Look at his actions at the very basic level. Hustle, Attention to Detail, and Innovation. Bring those into your life, and make your own dent on the universe. However big, however small. You never know who you may inspire along the way. Open your eyes, and use your beginner’s mind.

Take action towards your goals today. Never delay, never procrastinate. Hustle and innovate everyday…just like Steve did.

Some Great Articles on Steve Jobs

Icon Ambulance by Vic Gundotra

The Steve I Knew by Walt Mossberg – All Things D

The Tao of Steve by Om Malik – GigaOM

Reactions to Steve Jobs’ Death – Gizmodo

Robert Scoble Talks About Steve Jobs – Robert Scoble

Eric Schmidt on Steve Jobs

By the Way, What Have You Done That’s So Great? - Jason Calacanis

And some quotes sourced from Twitter and others

Don’t mourn because it’s over. Celebrate because it was.

Once in a rare while, somebody comes along who doesnt just raise the bar, they create an entirely new standard of measurement. – Dick Costello

Steve Jobs actually changed the world. Do you know how fucking impossible that is?

The next Steve Jobs is in a class room somewhere and I hope we can provide the tools to feed their imagination.

He changed the world—my world, your world, the entire world. His words to live by: “There must be a better way. – Guy Kawasaki

The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come. – Bill Gates

HP’s Mess of a Board

Kunaal Arya — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:41:22 +0000

HP…HP…HP…The big news of today. Slightly overshadowed by Facebook, and Facebook and HP trumping the news of CERN sending Neutrinos faster than the speed of light.

I have no choice but to Facepalm what is going on at HP. As a summary, last year, HP’s board fired Mark Hurd (Mistake #1) the CEO who was doing a great job of turning around HP. They fired him due to some expenses being put on the company, and an alleged affair with a company consultant, which there was no proof of. Now I’m all for transparency, and possibly having Hurd pay back the amount he expensed, but in no way firing the CEO over something like that. And a great CEO on top of that. Being a half hardware/half enterprise software company, they decided to bring on Leo Apotheker. Apotheker had a strong history at SAP, but took over the CEO post in the recession, and wasn’t really given a chance to shine. But the HP board brought him on, without an interview, (Mistake #2) and put him on the job, expecting him to take the company further. Apotheker, did what he knew best, took the company and moved it towards enterprise software, through a number of strategic acquisitions, and the announcement of spinning of its hardware division, and killing the tablets/smart phones business. Yesterday, due to falling shares and the unpredictability of the board, he was replaced by Meg Whitman, the champion CEO of eBay (Mistake #3).

Now let’s break down the 4 mistakes made above:

Mistake #1:

Why fire a great CEO over something so small. Yes, it was unethical. Yes, the policy is in place. But there were obviously some qualms with the Board and Mark Hurd. There could have been a much easier resolution to the problem, which I’m sure is taken care of at numerous companies. Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison said it best: “The H.P. board just made the worst personnel decision since the idiots on the Apple board fired Steve Jobs many years ago…” But what’s done is done, and they had to move on without Mark Hurd.

Mistake #2:

So they replaced Mark Hurd, with Leo Apotheker. Now look, he was a great leader within SAP, but SAP is an enterprise software company. HP is both an enterprise software and a hardware company. If you’re bringing on a CEO, you should at the very least, make sure that he knows what will work and won’t work, and will fit within the objectives of the organization. If the board wanted to go towards the enterprise software market, then perfect, Leo Apotheker is the guy. Give him time, and some free reign to do what he thinks is best, and accept what problems may arise in the meantime. Communicate this to shareholders, and make sure he does the best. But it seems like this wasn’t done. This is a complete assumption, but it seems like they were sick of the drama, let the executive search committee find who would be best, and went with it.

Mistake #3

Now, Apotheker killed off the tablet/smartphone business, and announced the spinning off of the hardware business. It didn’t make sense to him, he’s an enterprise software CEO, and hardware just wasn’t his thing, and he didn’t know how to capitalize off of it. It’s a tough space, with low margins and too much competition. So here’s where my problem comes in. Why bring in Meg Whitman. She knows her stuff, she’s one of the best CEOs of this day and age in the tech space. But her focus is consumer internet products, and she knows how to lead a team to excel in that space. She announced that she will stick by Leo’s announcements, and therefore stick to enterprise software. Now these are two completely different industries. With different products, different customers, different competitors, different development processes, etc. The enterprise software is changing shape, with a lot of smaller competitors providing niche products for verticals which are better than HP, SAP, and Oracle. Her experience at eBay doesn’t correlate with that. She was on the easy side, of everyone moving online anyways. For the sake of HP, and its employees, I hope she can do a great job. But I can’t see how there weren’t any other suitable candidates.

To me, it seems like one of the worst boards in the last few years. Flip-flopping between 3 CEOs, with completely different backgrounds within a year is shocking. What’s needed at HP is a solid business strategy that will product the most value to the brand, the employees, and the shareholders. A strategy that the company can stick to, and bring out the best of its innovative employees. Hopefully, they can find their way. We just have to give HP some time.

5 Things RIM Should Start Now!

Kunaal Arya — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 04:54:53 +0000

I’ve been following RIM for a couple years now. More so the past few months. Shaking my head a lot at some of the decisions they’ve made. Understanding some as well. They’ve landed themselves in some trouble.

3 Areas Where They’re Wrong

1. They’re phones aren’t up to date. They’re lagging behind the competition. They’re slow and laggy. They functional as e-mail phones, but so are all the other new smart phones coming out. The market has shifted to a consumer centric design, but they haven’t moved in that direction yet.

2. The Playbook was incomplete from the get go. They launched on QNX, which is great. Why they didn’t focus on building QNX for their phones first, and then launching the tablet in a year or two, blows my mind. I know they wanted to beat the other players to the market, but the phones have and always will make a larger portion of sales, and they can make up for their lost market share by redeveloping their OS on a faster system.

3. The management has got to make some major changes. A lot of people are clammoring for the CEOs to go. It’s not really necessary. They won’t go away without a VERY strong fight. But they can turn around the corporate bureaucracy and put leaders in place who can drive a product oriented company.

It’s hard to blame them. They started this company a long time ago, and rode the success, and changing things around isn’t easy. Just ask Howard Schultz from Starbucks or Michael Dell. I read Schultz’s book and wanted to e-mail him to give an “intervention” to RIM’s CEOs.

Innovation in this industry is KEY. You can’t rest on your laurels and do minimal and obvious improvements. RIM has smart people. They just need to bring back innovation and turn around the bureaucracy. I found bureaucracy to be huge at General Motors when I worked there, which was to be expected. It’s hard to turn it around in an industrial/automotive industry, but it’s ingrained into the soul of a tech company.

5 Steps for RIM:

1. Create a strong product strategy, and bring in proven product managers from the big guns

2. Give those product managers the power, and make sure they let their teams have the power and the room to create the products wanted

3. Give every employee an iPhone and Android phone for a month at a time. Let them play with the top of the line phones. If they only use BlackBerrys, minimal improvements will be made, but if they use the competition on a daily basis, they’ll be able to see the possibilities.

4. One CEO. One leader. One person to lead the company on the right path with a new sense of direction. He/she doesn’t have to say that everything’s wrong, but the right changes need to be made. Their last conference call concerned me because they acted like nothing was wrong. But I hope they really knew differently.

5. Push development of QNX phones and make sure it’s top notch and at least matches the rest. The corporate market is great, and RIM has it covered, but the consumer market is where their growth has been and the key to that is the at least match competition on the OS, design and price

+ a bunch of other changes. But these are the big ones that I see. Innovation has to be sparked from the top all the way to the bottom, and real change can be made. They’re still in a great position. Almost a $1B in profits for the quarter and near 25% market share. But the growth, that’s concerning everyone, has to be reignited.

Early Thoughts on Google+

Kunaal Arya — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:44:48 +0000

I have a few thoughts on Google+. I’m usually not too fond of social media, just because there’s so much buzz around it, and entrepreneurs jumping into the mix, when very few can make it. The problem is that most don’t have solid business models. It doesn’t get that way until the company hits critical mass, and for social media, you need A LOT of people.

But Google+ is a bit different. Mainly because you have everything already set. The only thing missing was a social network. Google has built an eco-system, that is now complete with social.

1. Facebook built itself on being social, and data came next, and making money came next. It wasn’t a primary concern. Same with Twitter. Google on the other hand, knows how to monetize Google+ right off the bat. The best thing about Facebook from a business standpoint…is DATA. They know what people like, in which age groups, with which gender, and with which location. Now, Google can build that same data set, and do it even better, through combining search, news, documents, video, etc. And they’ll monetize the hell out of it, because the eco-system is already there.

2. Look at the top bar when you’re in Google+. Documents, photos, reader, web, calendar. Look at any search results, and you’ll see a +1 next to it. Search for news and you’ll see a +1. Want to share a Youtube video? Go to share under the video and you can click +1. It’s integrated already into everything. Want to share a document. Click and click. Wait a few months, and you’ll see it fully integrated into Android phones, Google Chrome, ChromeBook (Google’s netbook). Just as there’s Twitter search, with a “immature” way to see who’s talking about your brand or company, Google will optimize it so it’s a main focus. Google knows how to do business.

3. It’s a combination of Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, all in one. I can follow the “entrepreneur celebrities” that I admire, and they can follow me too, just like Twitter. But I can have my own circles for people I want to talk to, and nobody has to see anything else. I’ve had a business idea for a little while, where you have an app for just your close friends and you can make plans and post pictures for only for them to see. Most of my friends don’t like putting anything up because Facebook has had to include a much larger circle than what they’re comfortable with. But with circles, you can create your own little group and only talk within them. Facebook has it, but nobody knows about it. Google built off of the concept. So much for that business idea…did I tell you I’m not fond of social?

Overall, it looks promising. Right now it’s full of techies, and it’s a good crowd to be around. We’ll see if it can move past that, but I’m sure it will. I had some doubt about Google, but the foreseeably integration to complete their eco-system seems promising.

Decisionitis

Kunaal Arya — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:48:10 +0000

Decisionitis – The disease of not being able to efficiently make decisions.

I just read an article in the latest issue of the Harvard Business Review, titled “The Decision-Driven Organization” by three partners of Bain & Company, Marcia Blenko, Michael Mankins, and Paul Rogers. They compiled a study of organizations, and their processes of restructuring. They noted that “many CEOs assumed that organizational structure – the boxes and lines on a company’s org chart – is a key determinant of financial performance,” and that CEOs believe that to battle innovation, the best process would be creating the best structure for channeling towards innovation.

The research found that CEOs needed to focus on the decision making. “A corporation’s structure, similarly, will produce better performance if and only if it improves the organization’s ability to make and execute key decisions better and faster than competitors…the reorganization challenge is to structure the company so that its leaders can make decisions that produce more and better innovation over time.” CEOs restructure constantly, trying to shake things up, make the company profitable, etc. But shaking things up the wrong way doesn’t help. The authors studied companies which restructured, and most did not improve profitability or productivity. In that automotive industry, Chrysler’s restructuring did nothing, because they just shook things up. Ford on the other hand, hired Alan Mullally from Boeing, and he started by making critical decisions and then looking into the corporate structure.

This issue of HBR attracted my attention because of the title, “Managing Change,” and it related a lot to the recent posts on Change I’ve been writing. I never looked at it through the way of making decisions, and after reading this article, it made a lot of sense to me. But I also read it in a different way, in a new way, related to my last few posts. Now my last three posts related to change, are The Strategy of Time, The Quickest Change, and Change Strategy.

The Strategy of Time, discusses management teams that focus on the present instead of the future. In other words, management which focuses on solving problems that are currently on the table, instead of focusing on tackling future opportunities. Companies end up missing the boat of new technologies, or new business models, because they’re too busy focusing on their current profit or other business problems. By placing decision makers, that focus on the future, and can also handle the present will put a company in a position to be able to tackle their current problems while taking advantages of opportunities.

The Quickest Change, is in summary, about how in an industry, the company who makes the quickest change, can win, even if they’re decisions aren’t of the highest quality, they will be one step closer than the competition. I recommend you take a look at the OODA loop for a more detailed analogy of this. Now this is almost impossible, when decisions are too difficult to make in an organization. If there are too many levels of bureaucracy, it is almost impossible. If it requires more people to take a deeper look into a decision, and to finally come to a final decision, it is almost impossible. To have quick change, CEOs need to leave managers able to make their own decisions. They need to let the responsibility rest on the managers’ shoulders, within reason. If managers hired are innovative, and put in place to lead the company into the future, than their ideas and their instincts should be trusted enough to make decisions. If they’re not, then the right managers need to be put in their place.

The Change Strategy, is based on an e-book by author of 33 Strategies of War, Robert Greene, and in there, I discuss how important Change is to an organization. And that a company culture, and structure that is open to change can change quick. Now this is true, but this is where I missed the point of this article from HBR. That to have a change culture, you need decisiveness, integrated throughout all levels. Robert Greene discusses Google as an example. Google allows employees to spend 20% of their time working on their own projects that their passionate about. This allows employees to make their own decisions about which products and services to offer, and work passionately on it. If these decisions become valuable to the company, then they are implemented in Beta form. Allowing them to release it quickly, before more competitors have the opportunity to, and continue building it with the help of consumers’ feedback. Putting decisions in the hands of all employees, allows Google to be the number one internet company in the world.

Instinct - The Common Trait

Through this article, I decided to look at how organizations typically handle decisions, followed by how individuals handle decisions, and finally how animals handle decisions. The main area to look at it, in terms of efficiency, is between how organizations and individuals execute decisions. Individuals use their instinct, analysis and judgement. The problem comes with judgement, because it uses added personal biases, closed-mindness, and historical experiences which all cloud a decision. Now an organization includes multiple individuals making a decision. Therefore, each of these individuals will add their judgements, which may be flawed. Some individuals also take their sweet time making a decision. The process is repeated over and over again, making the decision process very lengthy and multiplied with personal biases. I have friends who will ponder a simple decision, such as purchasing a cellular phone for months. Repeat this process over and over with several levels of management, and you can see how lengthy of a process it can become for even more critical decisions.

I found that all three have a common train, Instinct. Instinct is defined as the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behaviour. On a level that more of us can relate to, it is that feeling in your gut, that you should do something. Now instinct has been studied many times, and it is very intricate. Instinct, will take all the data that you have that is related to a situation and make a decision whether to accept it intrinsically or not. It will use your biases, your open/closed mindness, a quick analysis of the environment, and historical data to make a decision in an instant. The problem is that we take this information and data, and cloud it with our judgements and our analysis. Now this sometimes may be okay, but it can also cloud a good decision. We have instinct, which we’ve discussed above. Instinct can make a very good decision for us, but then we cloud it with additional biases, and closed mindness. We include the judgements of other people, multiplying the bias each time. It can get to the point, where even the first decision maker will go against his instincts. If a CEO can trust the instincts of the organization’s managers, then the managers can efficiently make their own decisions, and the bureaucracy isn’t necessary. Organizations can strive through being mobile, and giving all employees the responsibility of making their own decisions for the company’s best interests. This responsibility can spark the innovation in an organization, and allow employees to be motivated to leave their own legacy on the company.

We need to promote instinct based decisions, but first we have to promote decisions throughout an organization. CEOs need to implement a decision executing management style. Where decisions are the focus of the organizations. Where policies are in the place, to allow decisions to be more effective, efficient, quicker, and with creativity. These have to implemented not only with senior management, but employees also. Having a system like Google has, will not only solve an organization’s problems, but will also allow it to rise above and beyond the status quo, and innovate at a top level.

ANY CHARACTER HERE

Diagnostics Test - Testing the Disruptive Judgements

McKinsey Quarterly recently released an article about trusting your instinct for decisions, “how to test your decision making instincts“. And found that although Instinct, is a great trait of humans, we need to assess them for biases. I disagree with one part of this, that instinct is still instinct, and these biases you see below are the judgements which can disrupt the decision-making.

1. The Familiarity Test: Have we frequently experienced identical or similar situations?
Essentially, how is this situation different or similar from other situations we have experienced. Are there going to be uncertainties that can cause a problem in the instinct based decision making process. “…we can also develop a list of uncertainties and assess whether we have sufficient experience to judge them well.”

2. The Feedback Test: Did we get reliable feedback in past situations?
Did we learn the right lessons in past situations? Was the feedback skewed towards being good? Would the negative aspects of the past results impact this situation? We have to be able to judge our past experiences properly. Those are the historical data which can skew our decisions. We need to avoid using our instinct if this data is unreliable.

3. The Measured-Emotions Test: Are the emotions we have experienced in similar or related situations measured?
Emotions can skew a decision, and especially instinct. We could have a bad feeling about a decision, but our emotions or attachments can skew us to make these decisions. This is especially seen in escalation of commitment, where we’re too far committed into a project that we don’t want to stop even though the odds say that it won’t work. Think of this as a game of poker, you’re in a hand with half of your chips, you have Ace high, and there is a flush draw on the table. Four other players are in the game, but someone calls you all in and you call because you’re already half in. Also, having negative experiences in a situation can push a decision away and skew you instinct.

4. The Independence Test: Are we likely to be influenced by any inappropriate personal interests or attachments?
Here, we have to look at the personal interests involved in a decision. “If we are trying to decide between two office locations for an organization, one of which is much more personally convenient, we should be cautious. Our subconscious will have more positive emotional tags for the more convenient location.” We have to make sure that we avoid these biases.

ANY CHARACTER HERE

The Decisionitis Cure - Three Prescriptions

There are a number of steps an organization has to take to make decisions, to begin with, Make Decisions.

Prescription 1: Make the Decisions
Decide which employees you want to lead the decision making in your organization. Which managers you want to focus on the future, and which to handle the present. But most important, is deciding which managers who have good instincts that you can trust. That will make a good manager. Analysis is also important, but the most efficient and important are managers with instinct. McKinsey Quarterly recently issued an article titled, When can you trust your gut?, and this can give your employees and managers some great insight into analyzing its trust in Instincts. The authors, a Nobel Laureate, and renowned psychologist, discuss that intuition can be used in situations of structure, but not volatility. For example, in deciding which way to enter a new market, but not in picking stocks during a volatile market. If you read Straight from the Gut by Jack Welch, he made decisions with leadership to succeed in the future. He sold/cut the companies which weren’t in the Top 3 of their respective industries. And he maintained that decision making principle through placing the same kind of leadership at every level.Find out which decisions are crucial to the success of the company and make them. In the article mentioned above, the authors discuss Ford. When Alan Mullally began at Ford, he started by making key decisions, instead of the typical shuffling around of the status quo restructuring. He took reign of the company, and found out what their consumers wanted, and decided that that was what they were going to do. Everyone knew they had to cut their additional brands, Aston Martin, Volvo, Mercury, and he did just that. The previous management, had biases and historical data involved. They already spent a lot of money on those brands and employees were attached to them. But without judgement and biases, Alan Mullally came in and made the crucial decisions needed. Employees with trusted instincts should be sought after for an organization, and should be a crucial part of the selection and interview process.

Prescription 2: A Decisive Company Culture
Create a company culture where making decisions is encouraged. I conducted my own little study, and asked 20 people at various levels and various companies, how often they made decisions, have they ever refrained from making a decision, and why. The results were disparaging, although 70% said they made over 5 decisions per year, only 10% made decisions that had a major impact on the company. Out of every person I interviewed, 90% had refrained from making decisions, and the reasons behind them were, the lengthy process of a decision being approved, the fear of criticism from managers, and the lack of support of the company. Some of these companies even had programs in place for presenting ideas with a cash reward. The company culture has to support decision making at every level, and give employees the responsibility to make a difference, or else your employees’ values will not be fulfilled.

Prescription 3: Annual Check-up
A company has to complete a periodical checkup on the decision making process of the whole company. Resources have to be put aside to conduct employee surveys, interview managers, and review the organization’s overall innovation. Is your company ahead of its competitors? If not, has your company progressed? Are your employees starting their own initiatives? Are managers responsive? How long is the decision making process? All these metrics need to be analyzed, and improved upon if an area is found to be lacking. McKinsey Quarterly has an article on just that, How to test your decision making instincts, and this can be a start to developing tools for testing your organizational instincts.

ANY CHARACTER HERE

Summary of Procedure

To review, we have looked at how organizations need to be able to make executing decisions a priority. Then we related back to my other posts about change, and how decisions can related to initializing change with the same logic. We then looked at the decision making processes of individuals, and organizations, and how the status quo decision making process is not longer applicable in the rapid changing world. And we found that instinct, and management trusting the instinct of the employees can make for more rapid, and efficient decision making. We then went over the Decisionitis Cure, and the three major steps a CEO can make to implement decision making to make a more innovative organization and be steps ahead of its competition. Multiple examples demonstrate the need for efficient decision making, and with these steps, companies can not only tackle their problems, but initiate more innovation in this ever changing, mass information driven economy.